Comments for The evil that lurkers do

Comment from Andrew Blocksidge on 2006-10-12

2006-10-12T05:10:16Z

I have actually participated in several panels on Communities of Practice where the topic of lurkers came up. One community passionately defended the value of lurkers, as one of their survey's had shown that the folks gaining the greatest value from the community where the ones came to gain some sort of knowledge.
As for a community becoming skewed by the "loud voices" of the few, a lurker can either decide to participate when they feel the community is loosing the focus they came for, or move to another community more in line with their views. This is not necessarily bad, in either case, they are bringing new value to a community (either the one they begin to participate in, or the one they choose to join).

Comment from Dr. Dan Kirsch on 2006-10-12

2006-10-12T18:42:34Z

Hi Jack,

And hi Andrew -- who is at opposite end of the country from me, with you Jack in the middle. I think that gives us geo-proportionate representation on this minimal sampling...or something like that.

I've seen a study or so out there (can't put my fingers on it at the moment) that suggests that the tendency toward lurking is one of those things that have also made blogs more popular. Sort of fire and forget.

What amazes me (and you've followed the same discussion groups) is which discussion threads seem to generate the most responses. For the most part I'd never guess that it would a particular post that sparks the discussion.

What I have seen...although not sure of the scientific merit/validity of this...is that it seems to me that often the lurkers seem to chime in once the discussion begins to reach critical mass. As if they sit back for the most part, not wanting to be first...so if the thread generates minimal discussion and then tapers off...they just never participate.

Of course the biggest gag of all would be that there are only 200 users on the entire internet, with many many screen names and some days the use one, and some days another.

Dr. Dan

Comment from Max Leibman on 2006-10-12

2006-10-13T03:15:35Z

Your "audience" point really hits it home--I would build on it, and say even if unequal participation skews the opinions people hear, online discussions are still lightyears ahead of real-world equivalents; in the public sphere, Joe Random Observer can't simply chime in if he disagrees with a media figure, politician, or head of a company. Online, he can go from "lurker" to "participant" with a click of a mouse. Out in RL, we're all "lurkers."

Comment from Bob Handwerk on 2006-10-13

2006-10-13T13:40:08Z

The label"lurker has a negative, almost peeping Tom connotation which sets the tone for the dialogue as regards participation. Would commentors view the subject of this discussion from a differing perspective if "lurkers" were denoted as "observers"?

Secondly, how is participation measured? In a testimonial to Jack, I admit to mulling over, perhaps amending, and then applying some of his ideas when coaching clients. Am I thus relieved of the burden of being a "lurker"?

Comment from jackvinson on 2006-10-13

2006-10-13T20:58:05Z

Bob- This is an important point of the idea that I was trying to articulate in my last paragraph. People come to fora (forums) for all sorts of reasons. Hopefully, they come away with interesting ideas and new ways to think about things. If they apply the new ideas somewhere else, what does that make them?

It makes them smart cookies. Not peeping Toms.

Comment from Jordan Frank on 2006-10-18

2006-10-18T18:43:23Z

Jack - Passion, writing comfort and time are the elements required for work on my blog. At best, I can publish 2 to 4 posts per month. But within my enterprise, I publish 2 to 4 posts or comments per hour. The difference is between Alpha Blogging opinion and expertise on the net and Beta Blogging routine mundane information on the intranet. More here http://traction.tractionsoftware.com/traction/permalink/Blog272.

Jordan